Download How to Change the World. Entangled Histories of Development

Call for Papers: How to Change the World. Entangled Histories of Development
Conference: 26-28 May, 2017
Shanghai University, Shanghai
Organized by College of Liberal Arts, Shanghai University, Shanghai, and Graduate Institute, Geneva.
Call for Papers
Large part of international policies during the last two hundred years – at least – have been influenced
by the idea of “development.” Though the term became an important part of the international
discourse only after 1945, the concept is clearly older, rooted in the idea that socio-economic
conditions would and should improve and that specific policies should be employed to bring about
such improvements. Beyond this core, “development” has been a highly contested concept, whose
constructed character has repeatedly been pointed out.
Critics such as Arturo Escobar or Gilbert Rist have denounced it as essentially an imperialist policy by
high-income countries. They point to international structures created in the name of “development”
which have often reflected power inequalities and served the interests of those that put them in place.
They also call attention to the continuing enormous economic inequalities between people in different
parts of the world despite - or because of? - decades of “development” efforts allegedly designed to
mitigate such disparity. Meanwhile, other scholars like Richard Jolly and Charles Kenny identify
perceived successes of “development,” measured in social indicators such as life expectancy, infant
mortality, gender equality or literacy, which contradict a simplistic notion of continued failure. These
differences of perspectives are compounded by the fact that interpretations of what exactly
constitutes “development” abound. A Western concept of modernization usually entailed a
combination of mechanization, urbanization, secularization, a shift towards individualism, a growing
provision with material goods and life at an accelerating pace. But the perceived shortcomings of this
approach have given rise to a series of alternative concepts, including the basic needs approach,
Amartya Sen’s view of “development as freedom” or Herman Daly’s insistence on “development” as a
strictly qualitative notion, to be distinguished from economic growth. The 1980s saw the emergence
of “sustainable development,” designed to reconcile arguably irreconcilable economic, environmental
and social components of development and, more recently, Southern concepts such as “Buen Vivir” or
“Ubuntu” have been added to the list of alternative concepts about how and where to societies should
direct their evolution, each with its own package of contested meanings.
Despite this lack of precision, “development” continues to play an important role in public rhetoric.
International organization continue to employ categories such as “developed” or “least developed”
countries, and for many people, particularly in low-income countries, “development” remains a
powerful and seemingly self-evident goal. Clearly, for all its vagueness, the term has been considered
useful in communication both about international policies and about desired or actual changes in a
given society. In a larger sense, the idea of some form of socio-economic improvement as a goal of
public or private actions seems to have resonated with societies in many parts of the world, though
not necessarily with similar meanings or goals. Inevitably, as concepts and policies traveled, they
underwent transformations, often in unsuspected or contradictory ways, and perspectives of what
constituted “successes” or “failures” often evolved along with changing attitudes in public and in
academia. Besides, a full analysis of development is complicated by different, sometimes contradictory
repercussions over time and space. For instance, the adoption of fossil fuels, by replacing wood and
manual labor, may have contributed to reforestation in some regions, to the end of slavery in others
and to the endorsement of ethics of human equality (almost) everywhere. Only decades later did their
potentially disastrous role in climate change become visible, whose precise effects are still unclear but
will be profound, long-lasting and regionally different.
Meeting thirty years after the publication of Our Common Future, this conference seeks to explore
various concepts and practices of “development” between roughly the eighteenth and the twenty-first
centuries from a world history perspective, looking at the ways in which they entangled histories of
different times and different places. As pivotal sectors in which developmental practices have become
effective, contributions addressing economic, health and/or environmental aspects and their
interaction are particularly welcome.
Papers are invited on topics related to this general framework. Questions of particular interest include
but are not limited to the following aspects:
-
The actors of development, including governments, social movements, individuals,
organizations and others;
The various concepts of development and ways in which they changed through adaptation to
evolving circumstances or new ideas, through hybridization and/or through selective adoption;
The practices of development, including industrialization, collectivization, mise en valeur,
development assistance programs etc.;
The role of knowledge in development debates, including relevant input of science and
technology;
Apparent winners or losers of developmental processes, including trade-offs between
different effects.
Accommodation and meals in Shanghai will be covered. Limited travel assistance may be available
for some participants upon application.
A subsequent publication of selected contributions is planned.
Time-table:
1 Nov 2016: submission of abstracts
1 Dec 2016: notification about acceptance
1 May 2017: submission of papers
For further information please contact Iris Borowy ([email protected]) or Jussi Hanhimaki
([email protected]). Please send abstracts of approximately 300 words to
[email protected] by 1 Nov 2016.